High Speed Trains Coming to Midwest.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Packing into a bus more people than there are seats should be illegal.


You better not go to Asia then, a lot of the subway cars have literally no seats (less than 5%). No wonder they make a killing in public transit over there.

IMO the problem with public transit in the US is low population density, and when you get high density here, it is a slum.


I've been to Japan, to Hong Kong, to India, and to Macau. I did not set foot on a crowded train or bus (by choice). Thanks for your unwanted travel tips, though!
wink.gif


You blame "low population density." Check the demographics where you live. It's part of a Megalopolis!
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman

You blame "low population density." Check the demographics where you live. It's part of a Megalopolis!


It is still very low density compare to other parts of the world where public transit is profitable and the operation right has to bid for on a yearly basis.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: moribundman

You blame "low population density." Check the demographics where you live. It's part of a Megalopolis!


It is still very low density compare to other parts of the world where public transit is profitable and the operation right has to bid for on a yearly basis.


Why would you compare public transportation here and elsewhere? The conditions are not the same.

Also, who says public transportation is profitable elsewhere? How profitable? Profitable as in breaking even, as in making some profit, or as in making tons of money? How about safety? Go ride that haphazardly maintained 40 year old bus in Bombay! That's still better than you driving 100 mph with terrified carpoolers in the backseat.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
your figures, however accurate, have nothing to do with "benefit". It's merely choice that makes clogged freeways more utilized.

So we should obviously take choice away from people...so they can "benefit" from over priced mass transit...
smirk2.gif



Yep ..if yer not wid us, you're surely conspiring to destroy our liberty in one manner or another.

Life is not that lacking in dimension. It's not that simple. Realty doesn't exist on only the X axis.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Maybe MUNI needs to stop paying bus drivers 100 grand plus overtime per year!


i'd drive a bus for that...
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: moribundman

You blame "low population density." Check the demographics where you live. It's part of a Megalopolis!


It is still very low density compare to other parts of the world where public transit is profitable and the operation right has to bid for on a yearly basis.


Why would you compare public transportation here and elsewhere? The conditions are not the same.

Also, who says public transportation is profitable elsewhere? How profitable? Profitable as in breaking even, as in making some profit, or as in making tons of money? How about safety? Go ride that haphazardly maintained 40 year old bus in Bombay! That's still better than you driving 100 mph with terrified carpoolers in the backseat.

Yes, I would like to see some examples of profitable mass transit as well.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Yes, I would like to see some examples of profitable mass transit as well.


I thought the transit system in Hong Kong was privatized some time ago and is profitable.

This URL may substantiate that: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2008/1203b.html

That fact that Hong Kong's population density is not present anywhere in the States, save for perhaps Manhattan, and that the system was not a private enterprise from the get-go may qualify this as apples/ oranges, though.
 
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Yes, I would like to see some examples of profitable mass transit as well.


I thought the transit system in Hong Kong was privatized some time ago and is profitable.

This URL may substantiate that: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2008/1203b.html

That fact that Hong Kong's population density is not present anywhere in the States, save for perhaps Manhattan, and that the system was not a private enterprise from the get-go may qualify this as apples/ oranges, though.

Interesting article. It's amazing how people opine that they would like to squeeze as many people into as small an area as possible, just so mass transit will work.

Don't we all want to live like this:
apm1.jpg

Quote:
In fact, Mong Kok in the center of Kowloon is listed in the Guiness book of World Records as the highest density (130,000 per sq,km) human settlement on the planet.
 
Quote:
It's amazing how people opine that they would like to squeeze as many people into as small an area as possible, just so mass transit will work.


54.gif


How about there are people that realize that, regardless of how they personally feel about high population density, everyone cannot have their own 1/4 to 1/2 acre plot without deleterious unavoidable consequences that may not come to bear today ..but will eventually. This will require SOME "future think" in terms of sensible population management.

Or you could just keep going full steam ahead on course for a cliff and pretend that you don't see it ..figuring that "they'll do something".

Don't worry! You'll be taken care of by the market! Look what it's done for you so far!
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest

Don't we all want to live like this:
apm1.jpg



Been there for 15 years. Still miss it from time to time.

There are many pluses and minuses. Like never have to go anywhere if you don't feel like cooking. The affordable restaurants or food stalls are within the block.

Air quality isn't great, but if you can afford to live somewhere nice they are as good as most of the US. No need to park, wash, buy, sell, inspect, or maintain a car. No sales tax, and income tax is only 10-17% MAX. Education is cheap if not free, health care is almost free but low quality (you can still get health insurance if you want), crime rate is much lower than part of the US.

Property price, temperature (30C during summer), and home size kills the deal however.




Come to think of it, I think Tempest should move there since all but the home size fits perfectly with what Tempest want (low tax, low cost education, low crime, fairly conservative).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
How about there are people that realize that, regardless of how they personally feel about high population density, everyone cannot have their own 1/4 to 1/2 acre plot without deleterious unavoidable consequences that may not come to bear today ..but will eventually. This will require SOME "future think" in terms of sensible population management.


Did the sums last night.

If every single person in the world was "granted" 1/4 acre, they would all fit into a land mass the size of Oz.

Problem is that business wants to centralise in places like Sydney, and the Govts are left providing infrastructure (roads, trains, heliports) to get the people in to do their jobs.

I'd support Govt backed decentralisation of business rather than continually subsidising their need to get workers to the same point at the same time.
 
Quote:
Problem is that business wants to centralise in places like Sydney, and the Govts are left providing infrastructure (roads, trains, heliports) to get the people in to do their jobs.

At least here, the roads are paid for via gas taxes, i.e. by the people that use them.

Rail is subsidized outside of their operations. Airports are also subsidized heavily.
 
Here,
all taxes go into consolidated revenue, and are apportioned depending on "need".

NewCastle, Sydney and Wollongonong get a disproportionate cut of the "consolidated" budget.

It would still be cheaper for everybody to decentralise...imagine the efficiencies of traffic using BOTH sides of the road in peak hour.
 
Quote:
in fact, it would require close to half of the $787 billion contained in his recently passed stimulus package.

We know this because high-speed rail systems in other nations were not built, and are not operated, anywhere near so cheaply as Obama suggests. In the past decade, Taiwan built a single 215-mile high-speed passenger route for $15 billion. Germany, France, and Italy, often cited as advanced railroad nations, subsidize their rail systems heavily: Between 1995 and 2003, Germany spent $104 billion on subsidies, France spent $75 billion, and Italy spent $64 billion, according to a 2008 study by Amtrak’s inspector general. Rail ridership in Europe far outpaces that in the U.S., but in spite of these huge subsidies, trains have lost a significant portion of their market share to automobiles and planes since 1980.

Although the U.S. has no true “bullet trains,” at least two states have developed and approved detailed plans for high-speed rail that came with cost analyses. In 2000, Florida voters approved a ballot initiative mandating construction of a 320-mile bullet train from Tampa to Miami via Orlando. The voters repealed it four years later when they saw the price estimate of $25 billion. (Other estimates put the cost as high as $51 billion in 2004 dollars.)

Last year California voters approved a ballot proposition to dedicate $10 billion in bonds to a high-speed rail line slated to cost $45 billion just for its main leg between Los Angeles and San Francisco. If this project is ever completed - which would require tens of billions from the federal government or from private investors - it will probably end up costing more like $65 to $81 billion, according to a study by two rail experts at the Reason Foundation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/20/opinion/main4956981.shtml
 
Sure. Why not. Let's do feasibility studies for the next 20 years while cities and landowners bicker about where the new rails go. Meanwhile the construction costs escalate every year we wait. I could give a [censored] about high speed rail, it's gonna be AT LEAST 10 more years before it's done, if it ever gets done at all.

Meanwhile, our "standard" rail system rusts away in the rain. It's like all the goofs who blew their load on a shiny new HDTV when the old TV worked just fine.

And who is going to run this new high speed rail? Will it be government subsidized as yet ANOTHER money losing venture?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Rail is subsidized outside of their operations. Airports are also subsidized heavily.


That's it, I'm joining Tempest in the rally to ban airport across the nation, until they are self sufficient.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
in fact, it would require close to half of the $787 billion contained in his recently passed stimulus package.

We know this because high-speed rail systems in other nations were not built, and are not operated, anywhere near so cheaply as Obama suggests. In the past decade, Taiwan built a single 215-mile high-speed passenger route for $15 billion. Germany, France, and Italy, often cited as advanced railroad nations, subsidize their rail systems heavily: Between 1995 and 2003, Germany spent $104 billion on subsidies, France spent $75 billion, and Italy spent $64 billion, according to a 2008 study by Amtrak’s inspector general. Rail ridership in Europe far outpaces that in the U.S., but in spite of these huge subsidies, trains have lost a significant portion of their market share to automobiles and planes since 1980.

Although the U.S. has no true “bullet trains,” at least two states have developed and approved detailed plans for high-speed rail that came with cost analyses. In 2000, Florida voters approved a ballot initiative mandating construction of a 320-mile bullet train from Tampa to Miami via Orlando. The voters repealed it four years later when they saw the price estimate of $25 billion. (Other estimates put the cost as high as $51 billion in 2004 dollars.)

Last year California voters approved a ballot proposition to dedicate $10 billion in bonds to a high-speed rail line slated to cost $45 billion just for its main leg between Los Angeles and San Francisco. If this project is ever completed - which would require tens of billions from the federal government or from private investors - it will probably end up costing more like $65 to $81 billion, according to a study by two rail experts at the Reason Foundation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/20/opinion/main4956981.shtml


How much would the extra road, traffic, lost of productivity, and fuel costs if there is no high speed rail?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

stangguy
Oil and grease for Model trains
Replies
10
Views
1K
vavavroom
UncleDave
Variable Speed/ Capacity Air Conditioner in practice...
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
UncleDave
K
Köln to Frankfurt, ICE High speed rail cabview
Replies
0
Views
456
K.Aoi
V
How to buy a car privately?
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
GON
OVERKILL
Nuclear trains
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
gathermewool
Back
Top